Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this important legislation. Some Members of the Dáil would have suggested it could never be facilitated. We would not be discussing it if it were not for the composition of this Dáil. I compliment my colleague, Deputy Barry Cowen, and the other members of the Fianna Fáil negotiating team for ensuring this legislation would be debated in the Dáil and part of the arrangement for facilitating a minority Government.

I know that representatives of Sinn Féin like to hop up and down. They are masters of the art of expressing sheer indignation. When they are representing people's views, they show how outraged they are about this, that and the other. They put proposals before the Dáil in its early stages during Private Members' business as part of an effort to claim some political credit, even though they absented themselves in having any hand, act or part in the negotiations and talks on the formation of a Government. They did not consider supporting a minority Fine Gael Government or a minority Fianna Fáil Government. They did not consider abstaining to enable some formation to come together in the national interest. They did not feel a duty to alleviate the need to return to the country in a second general election.

This legislation will suspend water charges for a nine-month period.

From 1 July, anyone who has been paying water charges will not have to pay any for nine months. It will afford an opportunity for all Members, after the commission has investigated and reported back, to debate fully where we go from here. My party has stated it is opposed to water charges, like the majority of Members of the Dáil. If the majority stay true to their commitment, water charges will not be reintroduced.

How did we reach this point? As previous speakers said, we reached it because of the manner in which the previous Government - initially the then Minister and now European Commissioner, Phil Hogan, and subsequently Deputy Alan Kelly - went about the creation and establishment of Irish Water. It was an unbelievable series of disasters. What we saw was possibly the worst ever introduction and implementation of a public policy with U-turn after U-turn. First, PPS numbers were to be mandatory, with the claim that there was no way it could be done without them, but, lo and behold, that was changed. Second, a fee structure was put in place which, again, could not be changed, but, lo and behold, a conservation grant was introduced. In itself, the grant was the biggest con job of all times. Regardless of whether somebody paid for water or whether they used 10 litres a week or 110 litres a day, everyone received the same amount under the heading of conservation grant. Like many of my colleagues, I saw old age pensioners who did not have the wherewithal to face another tax wondering how they would pay their water charges. The previous Government gave itself much wriggle room and leeway to change and modify policy to suit the political reality at the time, yet no leeway or concession was given to some elderly people who had failed to apply for the conservation grant owing to their age, or who were not able apply online because they had no family support, or who were afraid to deal with Irish Water in any manner or means. With a deadline set in stone, they missed out on the €100 grant. No leeway was given to them, but there was plenty for the Government as it moved from crisis to crisis when establishing Irish Water.

Irish Water was established on the premise that it would be able to borrow off balance sheet and, accordingly, bring forward a large-scale investment programme in water infrastructure around the country. That was right as a large investment is needed in water infrastructure. However, the Government went about spending €500 million on water meters, which are not used, and over €100 million on consultants to set up Irish Water. In its first year of operation Irish Water lost €22 million. I do not know how losing €22 million could be considered to be good practice in investing in large-scale development, but I suppose it is down to how the original legislation establishing Irish Water was introduced in the Dáil. In that particular week I remember that we on this side of the House were ridiculed for merely questioning the time given to debate the legislation. We were shot down and it was deemed that the debate on the Bill would be guillotined. Less than three hours were given to debate one of the most important Bills to pass through the last Dáil. By virtue of the fact that it went from having a majority of 30 seats to being 30 short, I hope and expect the Government realises that those on the Opposition benches have ideas and an important role to play in the scrutiny of legislation. That explains why this legislation is being debated in the Dáil now.

It is disingenuous when one sees Labour Party Members introducing legislation similar to that against which they actually voted in the previous Seanad. Fianna Fáil brought forward legislation in the Seanad to ensure Irish Water would always remain a public utility. At the time the Labour Party Members of the Seanad voted against it, claiming it was not needed. It is amazing how a person's opinion can change when he or she moves from the Government to the Opposition benches. Just like Deputy Alan Kelly when Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government tried to fool the electorate and failed, I do not believe they will be fooled by the Labour Party’s most recent proposals.

Under the Water Services Act 2007, if there is a problem with or a leak from public sewerage under a public roadway or footpath, it is the responsibility of Irish Water. Before that, it was down to the local authority to deal with it. Whether it was on purpose or an error in the 2007 Act, a problem has emerged with public sewerage in older housing estates. For example, many local authority houses on Green Road, in O’Growney Drive and St. Bridget’s Terrace in Mullingar have been bought out. To keep costs down when such estates were being built, the sewer pipes were not placed along the main road or the back lane. Instead, they were placed right at the back door of the houses. Accordingly, if there is a blockage in the sewer pipes, it is deemed to be the house owner's responsibility, even though it is actually a public sewer. These home owners are being penalised as Irish Water will not correct the problem. This needs to be examined. It is not the house owner's fault that when the houses were constructed, the pipes were not placed along the main road or in a public space.

Again today we heard the European Union's opinion on whether we can have derogation in the case of Irish Water.

Sometimes, when one hears the European Union coming out on cases such as this, it seems like it is meddling in the national affairs of a particular country. For all of the positives which were debated at length in this House only yesterday in the light of Brexit, when we hear the European Union stating it will determine whether we can implement the will of the people through this legislation, we do not have to wonder why some people are fed up with it or why some actually voted in the way they did in the recent referendum in the United Kingdom.

On the whole, this is welcome legislation. As I said, it gives an opportunity to suspend water charges for a period of nine months, during which time we will have an opportunity to consider a funding model that is fair and equitable and that will not place an unnecessary financial burden or hardship on people. Let us remember the way the original legislation was introduced. It was introduced on the basis that a person in receipt of an old age non-contributory pension of €230 a week who was struggling to survive was to pay the exact same annual amount in water charges as someone like me. The Minister may disagree, but that is the case. I am thinking of an old age pensioner living alone in a local authority house who is receiving €230 a week and paying rent, electricity bills and prescription charges. That person simply could not survive. The outgoing Government in its introduction of water charges never once took account of a person's ability to pay or thought of the person who could not afford further charges, who was living hand to mouth and waiting for Friday to arrive every week in order to collect his or her old age pension. This is not made up; it is factual. It is welcome that from 1 July water charges will be suspended.

I wish the commission well in its deliberations and coming forward with proposals that will ensure we can raise the necessary funding to make the investment needed in towns and villages across my constituency and in every other in order that we can see them develop and grow. At the same time, the charges must not be put on the backs of ordinary, decent working people.

See this speech in context